On 2. Sep, 2010, at 10:04 , Mike McQuaid wrote: > > On 2 Sep 2010, at 08:49, Chiheng Xu wrote: > >> Suppose you have a ultra large project, it will consume 5 minutes to >> CMake, 2 hours to build serially. If you have an 64 Cores ccNUMA >> systems, like Xeon 7500 (8 Cores * 8), theretically, you will have a >> 60+ accelaration in parallel build. Theretically, it will consume >> less than 2 minutes to parallelly build, but it will also consume 5 >> minutes to serially CMake. So, If you "cache" the Makefiles, it will >> only consume less than 2 minutes to build. > > First of all, I'm not aware of any development teams using that level of > hardware and I doubt yours are either. Secondly, you'll find that as the CPU > power grows, building is limited by disk IO and memory bandwidth rather than > CPU power. > > Regardless, what you are saying is that it will take 2 minutes to build EACH > TIME and 5 minutes to run CMake ONCE (as you said developers rarely ever > touch CMake files). > > If you want to use Makefiles, fine, but without benchmarks your argument is > pretty meaningless FUD against CMake and other makefile generators.
Oh, and yes: Ever timed "gcc -M" which is the usual approach to dependency-generation of hand-crafted Makefiles? THAT is slow. ;-) Michael _______________________________________________ Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
